GG Posted April 14, 2017 Posted April 14, 2017 And I don't entirely disagree with that assessment. I just think it's folly to put the blame solely on 44's bad decision when the worst decision was ignoring the political realities of our country and forcing an invasion that the people of the country were not on board for and expecting it to last long enough to achieve sustainable change on the ground for the people of Iraq. Which is why, today, any further ideas of launching regime change wars in the region would be equally as foolish and equally as likely to fail, causing more bloodshed and chaos for the people we're supposedly trying to help. To me, the argument GG is making is ignoring the original sin and focusing on the bad choices made after the worst decision was already made. And once again you're recasting the argument. The main reason that I'm highlighting Obama's mistake is because it's the more recent one and the one that needs to be fixed more immediately. Nobody is arguing anymore that the 2003 invasion wasn't properly planned or was launched under dubious pretences. But to his credit, Bush reversed course and set a plan in motion that started to achieve the needed stability along with greater trust from the tribes. All to be blown up a few years later and allow an even worse situation to fester. In 2010, AQ in Iraq was defeated and ISIS wasn't even JV yet. There's no way ISIS builds its foothold with a 10,000-strong US presence there. And you're using that massively failed approach as a cudgel to hammer away at your point even though it's not applicable.
Deranged Rhino Posted April 14, 2017 Author Posted April 14, 2017 And once again you're recasting the argument. The main reason that I'm highlighting Obama's mistake is because it's the more recent one and the one that needs to be fixed more immediately. Nobody is arguing anymore that the 2003 invasion wasn't properly planned or was launched under dubious pretences. But to his credit, Bush reversed course and set a plan in motion that started to achieve the needed stability along with greater trust from the tribes. All to be blown up a few years later and allow an even worse situation to fester. In 2010, AQ in Iraq was defeated and ISIS wasn't even JV yet. There's no way ISIS builds its foothold with a 10,000-strong US presence there. And you're using that massively failed approach as a cudgel to hammer away at your point even though it's not applicable. How? I'm merely pointing out that as disastrous as 44's plans were, the true folly was thinking regime change was possible in the first place. Which, is entirely relevant to our conversation today since many want to go down the same rabbit hole in Syria with an even more divided country than we had in '03.
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 14, 2017 Posted April 14, 2017 Really? We'll, no. Not entirely, so perhaps I should have been more clear. I meant efforts on this scale; and I suppose I should exempt Vietnam from my blanket statement. I'm not including places like Cuba, Nicaragua, and Haiti because those attempts were pre-WW2, and I find that a reasonable place to draw the line.
Deranged Rhino Posted April 14, 2017 Author Posted April 14, 2017 We'll, no. Not entirely, so perhaps I should have been more clear. I meant efforts on this scale; and I suppose I should exempt Vietnam from my blanket statement. I'm not including places like Cuba, Nicaragua, and Haiti because those attempts were pre-WW2, and I find that a reasonable place to draw the line. We didn't even win WW2 though. The Russians did.
GG Posted April 14, 2017 Posted April 14, 2017 How? I'm merely pointing out that as disastrous as 44's plans were, the true folly was thinking regime change was possible in the first place. And the evidence is? Last I checked, Iraq has a democratically elected leader and it's going through the usual growth stages in getting its institutions back to order. Its chances of survival as a state are greater than 50/50, but certainly isn't helped by the ISIS threat in the west. So if the country hasn't completely dissolved in the 5 years since the US exited, what do you think the situation would currently be if the US had stayed?
Deranged Rhino Posted April 14, 2017 Author Posted April 14, 2017 And the evidence is? Last I checked, Iraq has a democratically elected leader and it's going through the usual growth stages in getting its institutions back to order. Its chances of survival as a state are greater than 50/50, but certainly isn't helped by the ISIS threat in the west. So if the country hasn't completely dissolved in the 5 years since the US exited, what do you think the situation would currently be if the US had stayed? The US has stayed in Iraq, which is the only reason it's standing.
Deranged Rhino Posted April 14, 2017 Author Posted April 14, 2017 Windows 10 users: zero day exploits have been released to the wild... https://arstechnica.com/security/2017/04/nsa-leaking-shadow-brokers-just-dumped-its-most-damaging-release-yet/ https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/852949485726699520
grinreaper Posted April 14, 2017 Posted April 14, 2017 (edited) We didn't even win WW2 though. The Russians did. I think I have a picture of the Japanese surrendering on the battleship Красный Октябрь. Edited April 14, 2017 by grinreaper
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 14, 2017 Posted April 14, 2017 (edited) We didn't even win WW2 though. The Russians did. Sorry I missed this. There were multiple winners to WWII and the United States was certainly amongst them. But regardless, what does that have to do with post-war nation building efforts? Edited April 14, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker
DC Tom Posted April 14, 2017 Posted April 14, 2017 We didn't even win WW2 though. The Russians did. That is a hell of a stretch, considering they lost some 10% of their population and 35% of their economic capacity (and that's including US and British aid), and didn't recover to pre-war economic levels until the early 50's.
/dev/null Posted April 14, 2017 Posted April 14, 2017 We didn't even win WW2 though. The Russians did. Depends on how you define victory. The USSR came away with the most territory gained but Germany had the most kills. If you apply the American Lefts current political dogma, Germany won WWII
GG Posted April 14, 2017 Posted April 14, 2017 That is a hell of a stretch, considering they lost some 10% of their population and 35% of their economic capacity (and that's including US and British aid), and didn't recover to pre-war economic levels until the early 50's. As the story goes, WWII was won with US munitions and Russian blood.
Deranged Rhino Posted April 14, 2017 Author Posted April 14, 2017 As the story goes, WWII was won with US munitions and Russian blood. Yes. And Stalingrad was the turning point -- and it happened before the allies were on the continent. The US was on the winning side of WW2, but we don't win it without Russia. Sorry I missed this. There were multiple winners to WWII and the United States was certainly amongst them. But regardless, what does that have to do with post-war nation building efforts? It has everything to do with the discussion. Some are using our occupation of Germany and Japan as proof of our ability to execute regime change wars successfully, but one took 20+ million dead Russians to make work, the other took not one but two nuclear detonations. It's a bad comparison is my point and irrelevant to the situation in the ME or Syria.
GG Posted April 14, 2017 Posted April 14, 2017 You are truly clueless. Russia would starve to death without US aid.
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 14, 2017 Posted April 14, 2017 Yes. And Stalingrad was the turning point -- and it happened before the allies were on the continent. The US was on the winning side of WW2, but we don't win it without Russia. It has everything to do with the discussion. Some are using our occupation of Germany and Japan as proof of our ability to execute regime change wars successfully, but one took 20+ million dead Russians to make work, the other took not one but two nuclear detonations. It's a bad comparison is my point and irrelevant to the situation in the ME or Syria. Germany and Japan are more than suitable examples. The fact that the actual toppling of their respective governments had a higher blood cost has nothing to do with it. Iraq, because of the massive technological divide, cost far fewer lives and was accomplished with great speed, but the end result was the same: we conquered them.
Deranged Rhino Posted April 14, 2017 Author Posted April 14, 2017 Germany and Japan are more than suitable examples. The fact that the actual toppling of their respective governments had a higher blood cost has nothing to do with it. Iraq, because of the massive technological divide, cost far fewer lives and was accomplished with great speed, but the end result was the same: we conquered them. With respect, the end result has not been the same.
DC Tom Posted April 14, 2017 Posted April 14, 2017 Yes. And Stalingrad was the turning point -- and it happened before the allies were on the continent. The US was on the winning side of WW2, but we don't win it without Russia. And Russia doesn't win it without us. Fun fact: the US provided, on average, 1000 calories of battlefield rations for every Russian soldier every day for the entire length of the war. At a time when a Russian laborer in heavy industry had a daily ration of about 1500 calories, that is a lot of food - the difference between the country's survival and starvation. Want more? I have more. 40,000 miles of rail. Almost all their high-octane fuel (can't have an air force without that). Almost all their avionics (tough to fly planes without instruments). Enough shoe leather for one pair of boots for every soldier. 450,000 Studebaker trucks, and about 900,000 sets of tires for them (without which the Russian army had no mobility or logistics.) Thousands of jeeps and radios (without which the Russians had no C2). But the food thing always amazes me. That is a hell of a lot of food...plus, we fed Britain, plus our own standard of living increased during the war, plus we fed the French, Dutch, and Italians in the immediate post-war. As the story goes, WWII was won with US munitions and Russian blood. British technology, US industry, and Russian blood. Another fun little fact, that I think I've mentioned before: in the '50s and '60s, a rabies epidemic swept west from Eastern Europe in to the west. When researchers traced back the origin, they found it started in the eastern Ukraine around 1942-43 - sometime and somewhere around the battles of Stalingrad and Kursk. So basically, a bunch of rabid animals near the Eastern Front in 1942-43 collectively said "You know what? !@#$ this...this ****'s crazy" and started running away west, and didn't stop until they got to the English Channel. I doubted that when I first read it, but then tracked down the original research. It's pretty much true.
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 14, 2017 Posted April 14, 2017 With respect, the end result has not been the same. Of course it hasn't been the same. That's the whole point. The reason it hasn't been the same is because we saw the end through in regards to Germany and Japan, and did not with Iraq. Another fun little fact, that I think I've mentioned before: in the '50s and '60s, a rabies epidemic swept west from Eastern Europe in to the west. When researchers traced back the origin, they found it started in the eastern Ukraine around 1942-43 - sometime and somewhere around the battles of Stalingrad and Kursk. So basically, a bunch of rabid animals near the Eastern Front in 1942-43 collectively said "You know what? !@#$ this...this ****'s crazy" and started running away west, and didn't stop until they got to the English Channel. I doubted that when I first read it, but then tracked down the original research. It's pretty much true. That's absolutely fascinating.
Deranged Rhino Posted April 14, 2017 Author Posted April 14, 2017 Of course it hasn't been the same. That's the whole point. The reason it hasn't been the same is because we saw the end through in regards to Germany and Japan, and did not with Iraq. There's a bunch of other reasons besides not staying in country... But then again, as I pointed out, the US is still very much in Iraq today.
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 14, 2017 Posted April 14, 2017 There's a bunch of other reasons besides not staying in country... But then again, as I pointed out, the US is still very much in Iraq today. We are not in Iraq as we needed to be because of domestic politics and a hostile media, and had we seen our efforts through, not only would Iraq be grinding it's way along towards being a quasi-western Muslim democracy, but more importantly it would have been the foundation upon which a reformation of Islam could have been built. The primary reason it is not, is because we did not stay the course. Our presence there is diminished to the point of ISIS emerging as a freaking nation state.
Recommended Posts